I think the biggest problem with Katie's piece is that when you present only the facts (as AM did very successfully, in my opinion) those facts need to be 100% correct. No errors, no typos, etc. A long list of sources means very little when some of those sources are possible troll accounts. I think if a similar piece had been published in defense of JM, we would have ripped it to pieces.
Anyway, any journo who is thinking about publishing a piece, for the love of god, just send it to
@colouredlines first for fact checking.
Jack's timelines are incredibly confusing and it doesn't surprise me that anyone fairly new to the grift might get lost in the weeds. I've been here since the beginning (different name, had to take a break for a while and closed the old account). I still get things mixed up. But it's striking how often new Frauen and Herren turn up and say things like 'hang on a minute, I thought she did X not Y'. She lies all the time, about every little thing. It's really quite shocking.
In addition, some things we don't have evidence for have become 'facts' on this thread. It's worth being mindful of that. We don't know for certain what her childcare arrangements are (we know she's lied about them, but we don't know exactly what's true and what isn't). We don't know exactly how many times she visited the foodbank (it's def not certain that it was only once). There are lots of examples like this.